Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Saving the day with Customer Service

I came to the Infiniti dealership this morning for the first regular service on our G35. I am usually wary of taking our cars to the dealership since they always seem to overcharge for basic things and make you feel guilty for not getting every recommended bit of work done on the car.

From the beginning with our G35 though, the Infiniti dealer has made me feel a lot better about bringing the car in here.

First of all, their prices are not through the roof. That, in the end, is the biggest thing. I don't need to pay a million dollars for an oil change no matter how expert the service techs are. Secondly, they have found some ways to make life a lot simpler. They actually called me about setting up my appointment. Granted, that was just a way for them to get more business from me, but if I'm already okay with bringing in the car, having them give me a call to quickly set up an appointment (less than 5 mins from beginning to end) is that much better.

So I brought my car in and when checking in at reception, I realized that they didn't have me in their list of service appointments for today. I say "realized" because they tried their hardest to not let on about that. I'm guessing that the appointment I made via Infiniti customer service somehow didn't end up making its way into the local dealership's schedule. I'm not sure of that, but I'm guessing that's the case since the receptionist asked if my appt could be under any other name.

But upon (probably) not finding my name in the schedule, the receptionist just proceeded to get my info in and act as if everything was completely normal. And within 2 mins, the specific service agent talked me through everything they would be doing and if there was anything else I wanted checked out. He even noticed a couple of things which I was about to mention to him.

And my ETA? About an hour.

Very different from my previous experiences with luxury car dealers that always seemed to make it different. To expensive. Too much hassle. Just too much of a pain to deal with.

Granted, I brought my car in for some really simple stuff, but it's encouraging that I'm able to blog about my good experience while I'm actually at the dealer (free wi-fi!)

Thursday, May 24, 2007

No Fault

This is fucking ridiculous.

If you recall, a Major League Baseball pitcher killed himself by driving while drunk and talking on his cell phone at the same time. Now, the pitcher's dad is suing OTHER people basically saying that they contributed to his death.

What the FUCK!?

He's suing the restaurant that served him drinks all night long. Okay, so I can potentially see some negligence there. But on the flip side, if they had not served him, he'd probably be a bitch ass about it and complaining that they're not serving him drinks.

He's also suing a tow truck driver for being on the roadside helping another driver in a stalled car. Huh?! The dad claims the tow truck driver was negligent for not getting the car out of the way faster and for not putting down flares etc.

He's also suing the driver of the stalled car! Why? For being negligent and letting his car stall in the first place.

Now, I'm the first to complain about people who don't pay attention and get into accidents, but seriously....this dude drank himself stupid, got in his car, proceeded to speed down the freeway while on his cell and drunk off his ass. And he unsurprisingly got into an accident and killed himself.

And now his dad's suing everyone else for killing his son?

Everyone's fault but his own.

The American way.

I can just see this asshat throughout his life. When his son was in little league, he was probably the most annoying dad making sure his son won at all costs, even if it meant the other boys got hurt while his son looked good. I'm sure he was never happy with the disrespect his son was shown in the majors for making less money than he should have. And now, he can't live with the fact that his son was an idiot who had drove dunk multiple times and finally got himself killed for being the idiot son that he was raised to be.

Fuck that.

[By the way, I'm personally trying to make Asshat the latest derogatory term. Please feel encouraged to us it as much as possible.]

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Immigration

So immigration has been back in the news since a bill proposal was put forth outlining a wide variety of things. In this case, the bill is supposed to allow for skilled workers to basically earn their way to a greencard and eventual citizenship. Everyone seems to have problems with the bill, which isn't a surprise since it's a compromise. Regardless of the bill itself, let's just admit right up front that the only reason this is even a topic is because people don't want to deal with things are causing much more strife: Iraq and Healthcare. That's what always happens when people don't want to deal with real problems....they bring up immigration. People love to fight about it.

But something just came to my mind while reading a post on Sepia Mutiny regarding the term FOB and a comment about previous immigrants eventually "pulling up the ladder" and hating on more recent immigrants. What I actually thought of is how futile the idea of this all is. If the bill enables skilled workers to come into the country, there's a group of Americans who will say "Man, those damn immigrants just want to take our high paying jobs". If the bill enables lower skilled workers to come in, there's a group of Americans who will say "Man, those damn immigrants just want to undercut us and bring down everyone's wages"

The point being, that regardless of the arguments, people just don't seem to like immigrants. And it gets back to the age-old argument that America is a country of immigrants, etc, etc. I think it's obvious that most Americans don't give a crap about that. Oh well. Sad.

Oh, and my thoughts on the bill? Well, it's so broad it's tough to say anything really succint about it. My main concern on the bill and the discussion around it is the construct of *workers* versus *families*. I'm not saying it's pro or against families, but the reality of most people is that they are part of some family unit. Most long term immigration is associated with families, not with individual workers. And if they are individual workers, they eventually make families for themselves by either finding someone already here or going back to their homeland and bringing back a spouse.

Regardless of whether you think this is bad or good, I think you have to acknowledge that for any type of immigration to work in the long run, it has to take that into account. I haven't read through every last detail on this bill, but it seems to do everything possible to discourage someone with a family to go through this new hassle. You apparently have to work here 2 yrs, then go back to your homeland for a yr, then you can come back for 2 yrs, then you can apply for a greencard. If I have a wife and kids, I just don't think I'd bother going that route, regardless of the expense of it. It's just too disruptive. So I'd either:
a) Come here alone legally and be a worker drone saving up until the day I can either return home as a rich man or import my wife and kids after my 5 yr wait. I'd also potentially be accused of taking away a skilled American programmer's job.
b) Stay home legally and be accussed to taking away American jobs through outsourcing
c) Come with my family illegally and be accused of stealing good jobs from every uneducated American.
d) Or just apply for the greencard lottery from home and wait 10 yrs with thoughts of sugar plum fairies dancing in my head.

So how's that any different from what we have now?

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Snap! Crackle! Found! The Image is Found

There's so much interesting stuff I find on the web and just get pulled into. Sometimes I hate myself for wasting time. Other times I just smile the whole time I've browsing. I'm smiling now and it's because of a photographer's blog. Or shall I more grammatically state it as..due to the blog of two photographers?

the image is found photography makes me smile for various reasons. They've obviously got a great eye (err...two great eyes...um four great eyes!), but I see lots of great photography all the time since I'm always looking for it. What kept me going about their work?

The fun.

Not just in the photos or in the way they write their own blog. But in everything they do. Wedding photography can be taken way to seriously sometimes just because love is supposed to be romantic and all that jazz.

Okay, no, I'm not jaded. Just because I see weddings all year long doesn't mean I find weddings to be boring. Quite the opposite.

But as I was saying to one of my brides last week, they've gotta have fun with it. It'll show on their faces, their guests' faces, and ultimately in the photos. And the bride I was talking to definitely agreed with me, but sometimes I feel like our couples don't really believe it when they hear it. Nate and Jaclyn from the image is found seem to be getting across to their clients.

And it leads to great shots that are not only beautiful, but they're romantic, fun, and memorable. So have a look at their galleries, but also take a look at their blog. Just great stuff all around.

[By The Way, just like I use "Snap! Crackle! Click!" for posts about my own photos, I'll use "Snap! Crackle! Found!" for posts about wonderful photography that I find on the web.]

Snap! Crackle! Click! Shy, but Not

My latest fave from photos which I took while in Kerala:

Getting It

I like to think of myself as an early adopter, but in reality, I'm probably far from an early adopter in Silicon Valley.

Perfect example? Twitter. It's actually a very simple idea - you can post IM like things via their website, IM, phone, etc. In Web 2.0 speak, it's Social Messaging. And it's mashable so people have made crazy AJAX apps where the Twitter posts pop up on a map and lots of other random things. People basically use it to raise their global hand and say "Hello!". It's so popular that even the New York Times has written about it: From Many Tweets, One Loud Voice on the Internet

Problem is...I just don't get it.

I suppose it's just me since I just don't get it. Maybe it comes down to the current world of everyone wanting to say something. Anything. And in a way, that's what Web 2.0 is about, isn't it?

But I just don't get it. I can't imagine sitting on a web page watching people post their random thoughts. I can't imagine getting a Growl pop-up everytime someone says "Hello World!". Heck, I can stand sitting in a chat room watching people talk amongst themselves.

I could say that I don't have time, but that's not the point. I could make time if I really wanted to. But I don't. I just don't get it.

And that applies/applied to a lot of other things in one way or the other. RSS Feeds and Google Reader? I totally understand the potential with that, but until a month or two ago, I could care less. I was fine with loading up individual web pages. But now I use GReader everytime I have spare time. Podcasts? It was less than a year ago that I fell in love with podcasts. Now I subscribe to a couple of dozen and listen to things when I want. Flickr? I got the idea behind Flickr, and I definitely use it now to post photos of mine, but I don't think I get as much out of it as so many other people do, namely the community aspects of it.

So maybe that's it? I don't get the community part of Web 2.0? Actually, I get it, but that's the part that I don't make time for. So if there's something that JUST about community, then I just won't get it. Twitter is one of those things. If you go to the site and read the tweets, they're all pretty dumb. But if are engrossed by reading other people's random one line thoughts, then sure, you'll be on that site all of the time. Me? Heck no. I've got better things to do.

The parts of Web2.0 I've really gotten are the ones that let me do what I want, when I want, in small or large chunks. Google Reader? Perfect way to keep track of news, blog posts, etc, etc on my own schedule and easily keep track of what I've read, what I've liked, and tell other people about interesting stuff. Podcasts? Perfect way to let me listen to my stuff when I want. Whether it's in the car, at the bedside or while walking the dogs. Flickr? I began using it because I love exploring other people's photos when I want.

So I'm fine with getting my info, my photos, my audio when I want. The rest, I just don't get it.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Stand Up For What's Right

I've been maligned John McCain on and off since he's been pandering a lot to the GOP "Base" with comments about the Bush admin and the Iraq War, but deep down, I've always known that he's still a stand up guy who would do what's best for the nation (rather than what's best for the GOP and "the base")

Yesterday's lame-o GOP debate was an example of where my confidence in McCain grew by the way he answered a question basically asking if the candidates would okay torture.

Before I get into his answer let me first say something about how ridiculous public discourse has become when a question like this is considered legitimate. Since when has the question of torture even been a topic of discussion? I'll tell you since when: Since we got an admin so intent on maintaining its grip on power and expanding it's control in any way possible. Thank You Dick Cheney.

So moving on to the question itself, here's the summary of the question from Fox News
(which ran the debate):
The candidates also were asked to respond to a hypothetical scenario — homicide bombings at three shopping centers near major U.S. cities. With hundreds dead and thousands injured, a fourth attack is averted when the attackers are captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay to be questioned. U.S. intelligence believes another, larger attack is planned and could come at any time. How aggressively should the detainees be interrogated about the where the next attack might be?


The question is obviously talking about torture and how tough these candidates would be in this ridiculous hypothetical pulled from "24". The funniest answer definitely came from Congressman Tom Tancredo who said he'd be looking for Jack Bauer. His answer just referred back to how ridiculous it is to offer up these scenarios and being so possible that we need to know the answer to it.

But it was John McCain who stepped up to the plate and hit a homer in terms of providing a meaningful answer, but also standing up for all that is right and just about the concept of America. In short:
When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went — underwent torture ourselves — is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them,” Mr. McCain said. “It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are.


I'm offended that this ridiculous question is brought up. I'm worried that stupid responses like Rudy Guiliani's "every method short of torture" are even in the dialouge. But I'm happy to see McCain getting back to saying what needs to be said.

This "War of Terror", when it comes down to it, is a test of the American character. As far as the Bush admin's activities go, they have basically showed their character in their willingness to stoop to any means to support their end goal of supreme GOP power concentrated in the Executive Branch. There has never been any concern about what it means to be American, or even a human being....unless it's been as a snarky comment to make a Dem. look bad. Doesn't matter if it's torture, firing attorneys, or skirting every law imaginable; they've made it all too clear that character for them, means winning. At any expense.

I've said it before and I'll say it here....If I were ever vote for a Republican, the only person I could see doing the right thing for this nation now and in the future is John McCain. Let's hope GOP voters see to it that he's the GOP nominee coming out of this morass of GOP candidates.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Sheer Joy

Wedding season is warming up again so I was covering a wedding reception this past weekend. As I've said to friends, most weddings tend to be very similar to each other, but there http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifare usually one or two elements which set each event apart.

In this case, the unique thing was the last 5 minutes of the night and it really made me smile. The DJ had stopped playing music for the night and, as usual, the crowd wanted just one more song. This DJ stuck to hus guns and didn't start things up again, but the dhol players were happy to oblige. So they started to hammer away and everyone started dancing again.

Something about the crowd's attitude just had a different feel than the rest of the night and a different feel than most dancing and other parties. People are usually just into the music and enjoy it for what's it worth. However, with the lights on and the DJ packing up I think everyone realized just why they were on the dance floor. They were celebrating the bride and groom!

The smiles on everyone's faces. Everyone hugging the bride and groom one more time. Everyone picking up the children on the floor. It just made me smile.

And once again, I knew I'm in this for the right reasons.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Web 2 point Ohhhhh

Check me out...posting two days in a row!

So I mentioned Google Reader in my exceedingly long rant from yesterday. I actually wanted to talk more about it, but since I was mainly focusing on ranting, I left out some cool things I've finally come to realize about this whole Web 2.0 thing.

So I've only been using Google Reader regularly for a couple of weeks now. As I mentioned yesterday, the main thing for me is finding an easy way to keep up with the multitude of blogs that I like. Generally, each has at least one thing a day which is interesting and so I like to go to each one on a daily basis. Having everything in one place with an easy way to mark each as read or unread (just like email) means I spend less time scrolling and more time reading interesting things.

So up until now, it was really just a way for me to speed read through blogs. The interface was fine to help me through that, but the Web 2.0 nature of it didn't really hit me until today. And what exactly is the Web 2.0 nature of it?

The collaboration & sharing aspects. Until now, whenever I read something cool or interesting, I email friends as one-offs. Or if a blog is consistently interesting, I tell people about the URL. And that was the extent of it.

But today I just shared my first set of blogs. Check it out:
http://www.google.com/reader/shared/user/17433403963146537835/label/02-photo

So this is obviously a photo related set of blogs, but the cool thing about it is that I can quickly share out this stuff to my business partner so he can read things and keep up with the same type of things as me without having to do anything more than bookmark the link above. Or better yet, just add it as a feed into his own news reader.

Okay, okay, I know that sounds pretty lame and pretty geeky, but the whole idea of spreading information like this is so cool. Ya, the stuff I've shared above is all about photography, but what if it was about "green" technology? What if it was about the elections. The idea is that I can quickly share a base of knowledge with people. Not just so they can read the same things I read, but so we can all be informed as a community. And assuming they trust my intellect, they'll find utility in reading (or skimming through) the things I keep track of.

As John Chambers just said yesterday...
"...our communications and collaboration technologies are enabling the second phase of the Internet, or Web 2.0, which is redefining how people, companies and countries collaborate in ways never before realized."


What really excites me is the power of this all. Sure, what I've shared is limited and pretty specific, but as I mentioned above, simple things like this can really take us places. It's beyond a list of links, it's spreading knowledge around so that everyone can benefit and improve society as a whole.

As with that, I'll leave you with a visual on the power of what we're dealing with...


Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Back with some rants

Not bad...less then 3 months of laying low. And I'm back with some rants. So let's get into it...

Before my trip to India, I set up Google Reader as an easy way to go to a single page and catch up on news and interesting sites which I like. I used it a bit while vacationing, but in reality, I don't really care about news & blogs when I'm chillin' on a river in Kerala. Know what I'm sayin'?

By the way, if you're not familiar with Google Reader, it's an online service that lets you aggregate RSS feeds and read them in a single view. Read up on RSS here. The basic idea is that websites can publish their content in a standard format which is understandable by a RSS reader.

So last week I finally got back into G.Reader (as I have named the bookmark in Firefox) and I'm addicted to it. I save so much time by not having to go to multiple sites to read up on the latest blog posts. But there's one big drawback: News sites. They publish their headlines via RSS so they show up in my reader, but that's it. If I want to read the story, I still have to go to the site. That's understandable since they want to ensure you're getting the full experience they have to offer and they make money off the ads they place on their site. But the major news sites don't seem to get it with RSS...they publish ONLY the headline. Nothing more. And the headlines are such that you can't really tell if the story is anything interesting until you read the first few sentences. Why not just publish the first paragraph of the story along with the headline? That'll pull me in so I know it's something I want to read, and if it's interesting, I'll go right to your site to read the story and potentially even read more on the site directly rather than jump back to my RSS reader. But instead I just get a lame headline. NYTimes, CNN, ESPN, Yahoo, Slate, blah blah blah. You're all guilty of this and because of that I've taken them ALL off my subscribed RSS feeds. In fact, I actually go to those sites LESS now since it's more of a pain to click onto their website. Rather than visiting the sites every couple of hours, I head over to them just once or twice a day. Your loss, not mine.

Just more examples of big companies not trusting their users or readers and thereby alienating them.

Okay, so the next annoyance I have is with a subset of Mac users. Nothing new there. Mac-o-philes tend to be a little crazy to begin with. Most of it is due to simply being accustomed to certain ways of doing things. But sometimes I really wonder about them when they do things which just seem to make life harder.

So recently, Adobe came out with a huge update to all of their main software apps. Photoshop, Illustrator, etc, etc. Among all of the changes, they also changed the icons which the Mac uses to represent the applications. The old icons used to be a variety of colorful natural objects like feathers, leaves, flowers, etc bound within white boxes. I was used to them, but I always found myself trying to remember if the feather was the icon for Photoshop or for Bridge. I got it wrong about half the time and ended up waiting for the wrong app to open. Nice looking icons are cool and all, but when similar applications have similar icons, it's just a waste of time trying to remember which icon is which. So with the version of the apps, I think the Adobe people realized this and decided to simplify everything. So they made icons with two letter abbreviations for each icon. Nice and simple. More importantly, meaningful. Photoshop's icon says "Ps" on it. Bridge's icon says "Br" on it. At a glance, I quickly know which icon is which. They're not exactly beautiful, but they make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons.

Okay so Adobe did a good thing. Meanwhile, Mac-o-philes obsessed with cool looking things, decided they still needed icons which look good on their docks. So they created replacement icons which have no tie-ins to the apps at all. Why? They look cool?

This is the subset of mac users which I find really annoying. They do things JUST BECAUSE they look or feel cool. They like a disc-burning app called Disco because it has black smoke coming out when you're burning a disc. Cool? I suppose. But seriously...smoking apps? In the time it took that developer to add in the smoke, I'm sure something more functional could have been built into the tool.

And these Adobe icons? I'm thankful of the genius that figured out the utility of putting an application abbreviation on the iconset. SO useful. And yet, we have people who dislike them so much for reasons of beauty that they have to replace them.

Go figure.